PubMed · 14028622
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E DONG, E J HURLEY, R C STOFER, N E SHUMWAY. 1962. Experimental subaortic stenosis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14028622/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Low-flow states are associated with adverse outcomes in aortic stenosis (AS), but the prognostic value of transvalvular flow rate (TFR) has not been consistently established across studies. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies (published by November 14, 2025) comparing low versus normal TFR in AS. Data were collected from Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Survival was assessed using pooled Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression, flexible parametric survival models, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis. A total of 9 studies including 6,494 patients were analyzed; 2,575 (39.7%) had low TFR. At 8 years of follow-up, estimated survival was 34.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.7% to 47%) in the low-TFR group and 63% (95% CI 58.9% to 67.4%) in the normal-TFR group. Low TFR was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.74, p < 0.001). We observed a progressively greater hazard over time, with the hazard ratio approaching 1.9 by 8 years. At 8 years, RMST in the normal-TFR group was 7.37 years (95% CI 7.21 to 7.53 years) versus 5.07 years (95% CI 4.91 to 5.23 years) in the low-TFR group, representing a lifetime loss of 2.3 years in the low-TFR group (ΔRMST -2.30 years, 95% CI -2.53 to -2.07 years, p < 0.001). In patients with AS, low TFR is associated with significantly higher mortality and lifetime loss. These findings support TFR as a clinically meaningful marker for risk stratification in AS.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Surgical aortic valve replacement is the only recommended treatment for significant aortic valve stenosis. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement appears to be a novel option for high-risk patients. We report the implantation of the ReValving system (CoreValve, Paris, France) in a 64-year-old woman who was refused aortic valve replacement surgery for critical aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction because of severe pulmonary fibrosis. After anesthesia, the patient was put on femorofemoral cardiopulmonary bypass, and underwent a balloon valvuloplasty with subsequent retrograde aortic valve replacement by the ReValving system. Transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring of the patient's hemodynamics showed immediate improvements of the valvular area and left ventricular ejection fraction and only traces of paravalvular leaks. The patient was easily weaned from ventilation and resumed activity soon after the surgery. A multidisciplinary approach is presently necessary to offer a reliable and safe procedure.